DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 20230385965) in view of Cali et al. (US 11710199), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240149860).
Claim 1. Jacobson et al. (Jacobson) teaches a computer-implemented method for tokenized asset, comprising:
generating or receiving, by a computer program for an asset producer or seller, an asset [0070], [0079], [0090];
storing, by the computer program for the asset producer or seller, the asset; tokenizing, by the computer program for the asset producer or seller, the asset on a distributed ledger network [0066], [0092], [0042], [0059];
making, by the computer program for the asset producer or seller, the asset available to a consumer on a marketplace [0097];
purchasing, by a computer program for the consumer, the asset with a digital currency [0106], [0076];
exchanging, by a smart contract executed on the distributed ledger network, the tokenized asset for the digital currency [0135]; and
causing, by the smart contract, the stored asset to be transferred to the consumer [0093].
Jacobson does not teach that said digital currency includes tokenized (fiat) currency.
While Jacobson does teach that the platform accepts payments made in fiat (tokenized) currency or cryptocurrency [0087], Jacobson does not teach that payments are made in cryptocurrency.
Cali et al. (Cali) teaches a computer-implemented method for improved environmental impact and attribution using distributed ledgers. Distributed ledger layer includes a business logic/chaincode service. The business logic/chaincode service may be configured to monitor for business logic (e.g., interactive smart contracts) executing on the distributed ledger. The business logic/chaincode service may then analyze transactions for data indicating compliance with the business logic and may perform additional actions, such as processing payments and/or transfers (e.g., electronic funds or cryptocurrency transfers) in accordance with the conditions identified within the business logic (e.g., interactive smart contracts) (col. 13, lines 4-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include that payments are made in cryptocurrency. as taught by Cali in the system of Jacobson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Jacobson does not teach transferring the energy asset from the battery to a device.
Zhang et al. (Zhang) teaches vehicle battery life management for energy solutions wherein the transfer of electric power from the battery unit to the electrical system may be controlled based on the detection of a connection of the vehicle with the electrical system and the set limit [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jacobson to include transferring the energy asset from the battery to a device, as suggested in Zhang, because it would advantageously maintain battery health while reducing reliance on grid-based power supply and meeting power requirements of an EV user, as taught by Zhang [0001].
Claim 2. Cali teaches said method wherein the asset comprises energy (col. 5, lines 20-37). The motivation to combine Jacobson and Cali would be to determine the environmental impacts of different types of energy resources or energy transactions, as taught by Cali (col. 1, lines 25-29).
Claim 3. Cali teaches said method wherein the asset comprises renewable energy (col. 5, lines 20-37). The motivation to combine Jacobson and Cali would be to determine the environmental impacts of different types of energy resources or energy transactions, as taught by Cali (col. 1, lines 25-29).
Claim 5. Jacobson teaches said method wherein the asset comprises a digital asset [0093].
Claim 6. Jacobson teaches said method, further comprising: verifying, by the smart contract, a digital identifier for the asset producer or seller and the consumer [0093], [0095].
Claim 8. Jacobson teaches said method, further comprising: establishing, by the computer program for the consumer, a peer-to-peer connection with the computer program for the asset producer or seller [0126].
System claims 9-11, 13, 14 and 16 repeat the subject matter of method claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8 respectively, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang in the above rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by Jacobson, Cali and Zhang includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and incorporated herein.
Claims 17-19 are rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claims 1-3.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Husain et al. (US 20220227231).
Claim 4. The combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 4, except that the energy is transferred from a charging station.
Husain et al. (Husain) teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a system allowing an energy exchange wherein a cryptocurrency could be used [0109]. Transferring the excess battery charge through the use of special purpose equipment such as a dedicated charging station that can accept a charge from the vehicle that is selling its excess battery charge [0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jacobson and Cali to include that the energy is transferred from a charging station, as disclosed in Husain, because it would advantageously allow for delivering such charge to the electric vehicle that is receiving battery charge and returning charge to the grid. Also, the excess battery charge can be sold in order to take advantage of rewards programs, discounts, or other incentives, as taught by Husain [0114].
System claim 12 repeats the subject matter of method claims 4 respectively, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claims 4 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Jacobson, Cali, Zhang and Husain in the above rejections of claim 4, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by Jacobson, Cali, Zhang and Husain includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claim 4, and incorporated herein.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 4.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kasten et al. (US 20130219403).
Claim 7. The combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 7 except that the computer program for consumer queues the exchange of the tokenized asset for the tokenized currency in response to a network connection to the smart contract being unavailable.
Kasten et al. (Kasten) teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a network system wherein the network system may provide a number of publishing, listing and price-setting mechanisms whereby the seller may list goods or services for sale [0107]. The initial user request is generated by an application of a plurality of applications having access to the resource. An existing connection from the application is utilized to provide the data to the application. A current user request to access data stored at the resource is received. Based on a determination that the existing connection is unavailable, the current user request is assigned to a waiter queue (see, at least, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang to include that that the computer program for consumer queues the exchange of the tokenized asset for the tokenized currency in response to a network connection to the smart contract being unavailable, as disclosed in Kasten, because it would advantageously help manage and optimize the flow of data, particularly during periods of high traffic or limited resources.
System claim 15 repeats the subject matter of method claims 7 respectively, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claim 7 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Jacobson, Cali, Zhang and Kasten in the above rejections of claim 7, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by Jacobson, Cali, Zhang and Kasten includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claim 7, and incorporated herein.
Claim 20. The combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 20 including establishing a peer-to-peer connection with a computer program for an asset producer or seller [0126]. The combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang does not teach queuing the exchange of the tokenized asset for the tokenized currency in response to a network connection to a smart contract on the distributed ledger network being unavailable.
Kasten teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a network system wherein the network system may provide a number of publishing, listing and price-setting mechanisms whereby the seller may list goods or services for sale [0107]. The initial user request is generated by an application of a plurality of applications having access to the resource. An existing connection from the application is utilized to provide the data to the application. A current user request to access data stored at the resource is received. Based on a determination that the existing connection is unavailable, the current user request is assigned to a waiter queue (see, at least, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jacobson, Cali and Zhang to include that that the computer program for consumer queues the exchange of the tokenized asset for the tokenized currency in response to a network connection to the smart contract being unavailable, as disclosed in Kasten, because it would advantageously help manage and optimize the flow of data, particularly during periods of high traffic or limited resources.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688